Why is it so hard to change a world?

[Desdichado]

Exactly -- change can be much more subtle, and in the real world, quite often is. In fact, it's amazing how many times conquerers prove that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Nightfall]

Not me!

Just checking Hand.

Moon,

Maybe I did misread it...but seemed far different what you posted earlier than what you are saying now. In any case I do agree meeting in the middle, very important.

Josh,

Well that's why I still listen to my dad's opinion on things. He is a history/social studies teacher.

*Post number 6411*

 

[Desdichado]

Nightfall,
I don't know what you read into my post, but I was not suggesting that people run amok and kill things. Hmm...in fact, I stated specifically that this was a problem. I simply said that my players tend to destroy any elaborate plotlines I might put in my games. I think that players and GMs both should meet in the middle on this or a game will fall apart. Show the GM a little respect for the hard work he's done and the GM will show you a little respect by giving you a little leeway on changes to the story.

Heh, that's the problem with treating the game like it's a story or a plot. The story is what happens after the fact, not before. If a DM goes into the game with a story all set to tell, then the game suffers.

 

[Nightfall]

Josh,

That's true. But what I think I'm getting at if all you do is toss out encounter after encounter...you and the players get bored fairly easily as well.

*post number 6412*

 

[the Jester]

Heh, that's the problem with treating the game like it's a story or a plot. The story is what happens after the fact, not before. If a DM goes into the game with a story all set to tell, then the game suffers.

Absolutely! I think it's vital to allow the players the freedom to choose. If the dm wants to tell a story about the assassination of the king's heir, what if the party bodyguards him and stops him from being killed? What if they raise him from the dead?

Railroading is bad. On the other hand, if the dm isn't having fun too, there's no point in dming. If you want to run something along a specific theme I'd talk to the players in advance, but I would strongly recommend against ever having a predetermined ending in mind; the players get bored with having no ability to affect the outcome.

Worse yet is the thing where one pc becomes the center of the game, and can't die or everything falls apart. Ugh! I'd rather start over with a new group at first level.

 

[Desdichado]

Nightfall: Absolutely, I'm not suggesting anything that mundane! Merely that you can't think too far ahead as a DM in terms of what will happen. If you plan out a few major player NPCs, what their agenda is (and maybe their plans and schedule to complete said agenda) then set that thing in motion like a wind-up watch, and then put the PCs into the mix and see what happens. Don't plan the final moments of the campaign up front, and all the steps to getting there. This is an interactive exercise, not a novel.

 

[MoonRaven]

Nightfall,
More than likely what threw you off about my original post was I said something along the lines of "Plotlines? Who needs plotlines?". This was actually an attempt at sarcasm, which, I tend to forget, is hard to portray in writing My point was my players actively seek to destroy any semblance of a plot, attacking it more fiercely than they would a rabid dire bear.

Other responses:
As far as not having a story-type game: I disagree. You are able to have a story without having every detail entered, without making an ending, etc. I do it all the time (I have to, or it would just be hack and slash). I've given up on trying to give my players choices, etc, since they play better with making their own way with things. What I usually do anymore is write up my story/plot, then give branching plots according to the various character reactions I can think of. Though it's usually pointless effort, it at least helps me to feel more organized and occasionally I can be prepared for a branch off of my original plotline. My philosophy anymore is "It's not etched in stone, but written on paper - and usually in pencil!"

 

[the Jester]

As far as not having a story-type game: I disagree. You are able to have a story without having every detail entered, without making an ending, etc. I do it all the time (I have to, or it would just be hack and slash). I've given up on trying to give my players choices, etc, since they play better with making their own way with things. What I usually do anymore is write up my story/plot, then give branching plots according to the various character reactions I can think of. Though it's usually pointless effort, it at least helps me to feel more organized and occasionally I can be prepared for a branch off of my original plotline. My philosophy anymore is "It's not etched in stone, but written on paper - and usually in pencil!"

That's a great way to do things. What I don't like is the predetermined ending phenomenon, where the dm knows the outcome in advance and is determined to force it. I much prefer the player-driven type of game, where the repercussions of their actions determine the course of events. The flowchart technique sounds like a handy way to plan ahead to some extent, despite not knowing what the pcs will do, and that's always handy.

One of the things that's so fantastic about the good story hours here- Piratecat's more than any other I've read- is that the events of the game are the logical result of what's gone before and what the pcs have done. They still have things from years ago (real time and game time) haunting them!

 

[Wombat]

One of the major problems facing most campaigns are the conventions of Fanatasy literature itself.

Barring a very few instances, characters in fantanasy novels and stories change the very face of the world, become legends, sometimes even gods. Look at the hit list -- Tolkein, Moorcock, Jordan, Donaldson, Eddings, LeGuin. Just keep going. You don't find fantasy books that just deal with day to day life, with staying normal, average, or commonplace.

Therefore a lot of players expect to buck for godly (or at least Massively Heroic) status.

I have tried to buck this trend over the years and usually get puppy-dog looks from players -- they want to be SOMEBODIES, the heroes of vast, sweeping, heroic works of literature, rather than just guys slugging it out. Heck even Conan and Fafhrd end up as Major Legends, if not actual World Changing Figures (and even this latter point can be argued).

So we are stuck inside one of the massive and way, WAY overused conventions of fantasy lit -- Main Character/PC as Linchpin Of The World.

Deviate from this and your players will have words.

Which is truly sad.

 

[Larry Fitz]

If you think changing a fantasy world is tough, you should try changing the real world... sheesh.. what with the politicians, policemen, soldiers and all... well it's very difficult, believe me.

That aside, the PC's should have an impact, but they should not be able to catastrophically change the world for better or worse. After all when supplements come out, the more they 've changed the world, the harder the GM has to work to incorporate the new material...